1.) You will prove that special relativity doesn't solve the twins paradox which would easily merit a PhD in physics if not prestigious awards. It would also be an argument that tens of thousands of physicist have been unable to produce in the last 100 years.

1.) You will prove that special relativity doesn't solve the twins paradox which would easily merit a PhD in physics

Chill out dude, it's about making the most compelling argument and winning a stupid little debate.org debate. If I make a better case than my opponent then it doesn't necessarily mean your entire worldview is uprooted, that everything you were taught is wrong, or that I think I'm smarter than 99% of physicists out there.

I really didn't have the patience to read the whole debate because the solution seems so obvious from the start. First of all the Sun does not rotate around the Earth because it is not a binary system. The Sun does wobble, but its arch of rotation is well short of great enough to warrant calling the Sun a mutual rotation with Earth. As for the twin paradox, the twins are indeed in separate reference frames than the other; however it is their reference frame relative to the speed of light that determines their temporal anomalies. Interesting topic, but Relativity is still around for a reason.

The argument is based on a flawed premise, that of the use of valid reference frames.

While it is true that the reference frame of the earth twin shows the rocket twin speeding away and the rocket twin shows the earth twin speeding away, the comparison of both reference frames must use the Lorentz transformations and be compared to background stars and galaxies, the only close "rest" frame available.

And, when we compare both earth and rocket twin reference frames, we find only the rocket twin was accelerating.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

I can't tell if you're being intentionally stupid or if you're really ignorant enough to claim that. Yes, the twin paradox did arise from special relativity, but it was solved with general relativity. The object that accelerates experiences the time dilation.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

I can't tell if you're being intentionally stupid or if you're really ignorant enough to claim that. Yes, the twin paradox did arise from special relativity, but it was solved with general relativity. The object that accelerates experiences the time dilation.

I can't tell if you're stupid or ignorant either.

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

I can't tell if you're being intentionally stupid or if you're really ignorant enough to claim that. Yes, the twin paradox did arise from special relativity, but it was solved with general relativity. The object that accelerates experiences the time dilation.

I can't tell if you're stupid or ignorant either.

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

Under relativity, simultaneity itself is relative. There is also a frame of where both objects aren't simultaneously dilating. Your argument is nothing more than an appeal to intuition fallacy. You're appealing to the intuitive notion of absolute time in your argument.

I can't tell if you're being intentionally stupid or if you're really ignorant enough to claim that. Yes, the twin paradox did arise from special relativity, but it was solved with general relativity. The object that accelerates experiences the time dilation.

I can't tell if you're stupid or ignorant either.

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

You really need to learn more about relativity before you argue what you're arguing. There's also an independent frame of reference where the acceleration of object while the other remained unchanged.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

At 11/9/2014 9:04:55 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:Y'all need to specify which Relativity y'all are referring to for this argument to make any sense, since the two Relativities contradict each other on certain points.

So you think that scientists are stupid enough accept two theories that contradict each other?

Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.

At 11/9/2014 9:04:55 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:Y'all need to specify which Relativity y'all are referring to for this argument to make any sense, since the two Relativities contradict each other on certain points.

So you think that scientists are stupid enough accept two theories that contradict each other?

I don't merely think contradictory theories are accepted, I know they are. Einstein even admitted his Special Relativity cannot claim unlimited validity, since there are circumstances where it can't do the job like General Relativity can. In special relativity, light-speed is a constant. In general relativity, it's not.

Similarly, Newton's laws of motion don't work in the realm of quantum mechanics or at galactic scales. This effectively means Newtonian laws contradict Quantum Mechanics.

It doesn't mean scientists are stupid necessarily, it just means they are practical.

At 11/9/2014 9:04:55 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:Y'all need to specify which Relativity y'all are referring to for this argument to make any sense, since the two Relativities contradict each other on certain points.

Special relativity is just that - special. It only considers inertial frames of references (frames that are not accelerating). General relativity generalized special relativity to non-inertial reference frames (frames that are accelerating). And the speed of light is constant according to both theories.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

At 11/9/2014 9:04:55 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:Y'all need to specify which Relativity y'all are referring to for this argument to make any sense, since the two Relativities contradict each other on certain points.

So you think that scientists are stupid enough accept two theories that contradict each other?

Similarly, Newton's laws of motion don't work in the realm of quantum mechanics or at galactic scales. This effectively means Newtonian laws contradict Quantum Mechanics.

Newton's laws actually work perfectly on galactic scales. Newton's laws of motion work only on macroscopic scales. They don't work when we get down to the size of the atom. It's not that Newton's laws are wrong, they're just a simplification of quantum mechanics when the effects of QM become irrelevant. In fact, one can derive Newton's laws from quantum mechanics.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

At 11/10/2014 2:52:05 PM, Subutai wrote:And the speed of light is constant according to both theories.

Nope, it's not. But don't take my word for it:"[T]he principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K", must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity." - Einstein

At 11/10/2014 2:52:05 PM, Subutai wrote:And the speed of light is constant according to both theories.

Nope, it's not. But don't take my word for it:"[T]he principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K", must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity." - Einstein

First off, from what I can tell from my research, that was not said by Einstein, but by someone writing a book against him. Second off, in general relativity, light only appears to be traveling slower because gravity causes the clocks to run slower and the distances to be shortened. Light does not really change in speed.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

At 11/10/2014 2:52:05 PM, Subutai wrote:And the speed of light is constant according to both theories.

Nope, it's not. But don't take my word for it:"[T]he principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K", must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity." - Einstein

First off, from what I can tell from my research, that was not said by Einstein, but by someone writing a book against him.

It's both. Einstein submitted it in German to the journal Annalen der Physik in 1916 and the English translation I provided was from a 1932 book by one of Einstein's opponents.

Second off, in general relativity, light only appears to be traveling slower because gravity causes the clocks to run slower and the distances to be shortened. Light does not really change in speed.

Well, Einstein made General Relativity, and he disagrees with you in his own book:"The principle of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light requires a modification."

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

But, that is the flaw in the debate.

For example, we are riding on a particle moving at near light speed directly towards the sun. From our reference frame, the sun appears to be accelerating towards us and we are at rest. Yet, if that were true, the sun should be a black hole considering how much mass/energy it would have to acquire and use to accelerate to near light speed.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

But, that is the flaw in the debate.

For example, we are riding on a particle moving at near light speed directly towards the sun. From our reference frame, the sun appears to be accelerating towards us and we are at rest. Yet, if that were true, the sun should be a black hole considering how much mass/energy it would have to acquire and use to accelerate to near light speed.

Then that proves a preferred reference frame exists, falsifying Special Relativity.

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

But, that is the flaw in the debate.

For example, we are riding on a particle moving at near light speed directly towards the sun. From our reference frame, the sun appears to be accelerating towards us and we are at rest. Yet, if that were true, the sun should be a black hole considering how much mass/energy it would have to acquire and use to accelerate to near light speed.

Then that proves a preferred reference frame exists, falsifying Special Relativity.

How does that work? Explain your claims.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

But, that is the flaw in the debate.

For example, we are riding on a particle moving at near light speed directly towards the sun. From our reference frame, the sun appears to be accelerating towards us and we are at rest. Yet, if that were true, the sun should be a black hole considering how much mass/energy it would have to acquire and use to accelerate to near light speed.

Then that proves a preferred reference frame exists, falsifying Special Relativity.

How does that work? Explain your claims.

Both frames must be reciprocal in Special Relativity, but you just said that if our reference is used, the Sun turns into a black hole, but if the Sun's reference frame is used, it doesn't turn into a black hole.

At 11/10/2014 2:52:05 PM, Subutai wrote:And the speed of light is constant according to both theories.

Nope, it's not. But don't take my word for it:"[T]he principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K", must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity." - Einstein

First off, from what I can tell from my research, that was not said by Einstein, but by someone writing a book against him.

It's both. Einstein submitted it in German to the journal Annalen der Physik in 1916 and the English translation I provided was from a 1932 book by one of Einstein's opponents.

Second off, in general relativity, light only appears to be traveling slower because gravity causes the clocks to run slower and the distances to be shortened. Light does not really change in speed.

Well, Einstein made General Relativity, and he disagrees with you in his own book:"The principle of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light requires a modification."

At 11/10/2014 2:52:05 PM, Subutai wrote:And the speed of light is constant according to both theories.

Nope, it's not. But don't take my word for it:"[T]he principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K", must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity." - Einstein

First off, from what I can tell from my research, that was not said by Einstein, but by someone writing a book against him.

It's both. Einstein submitted it in German to the journal Annalen der Physik in 1916 and the English translation I provided was from a 1932 book by one of Einstein's opponents.

Second off, in general relativity, light only appears to be traveling slower because gravity causes the clocks to run slower and the distances to be shortened. Light does not really change in speed.

Well, Einstein made General Relativity, and he disagrees with you in his own book:"The principle of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light requires a modification."

If the accelerating object experiences time dilation, then both objects simultaneously experience time dilation and don't experience time dilation at the same time, since there is always a frame of reference from which it is true to say any given twin experiences acceleration and time dilation.

But, that is the flaw in the debate.

For example, we are riding on a particle moving at near light speed directly towards the sun. From our reference frame, the sun appears to be accelerating towards us and we are at rest. Yet, if that were true, the sun should be a black hole considering how much mass/energy it would have to acquire and use to accelerate to near light speed.

Then that proves a preferred reference frame exists, falsifying Special Relativity.

How does that work? Explain your claims.

Both frames must be reciprocal in Special Relativity, but you just said that if our reference is used, the Sun turns into a black hole, but if the Sun's reference frame is used, it doesn't turn into a black hole.

No, if you read again, I said the sun "should" be a black hole considering all the relativistic mass it would have to gain. But of course, the sun does not turn into a black hole nor is perceived as one.

That is flaw in the debate, as well. a conclusion based on an invalid reference frame.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 11/10/2014 2:52:05 PM, Subutai wrote:And the speed of light is constant according to both theories.

Nope, it's not. But don't take my word for it:"[T]he principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K", must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity." - Einstein

First off, from what I can tell from my research, that was not said by Einstein, but by someone writing a book against him.

It's both. Einstein submitted it in German to the journal Annalen der Physik in 1916 and the English translation I provided was from a 1932 book by one of Einstein's opponents.

Second off, in general relativity, light only appears to be traveling slower because gravity causes the clocks to run slower and the distances to be shortened. Light does not really change in speed.

Well, Einstein made General Relativity, and he disagrees with you in his own book:"The principle of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light requires a modification."